Research: A randomised control trial of interleaved maths practice

  • Title: A randomised control trial of interleaved mathematics practice
  • Authors: Roher et al
  • Access the original paper here
  • Listen to a deep-dive podcast:

Paper summary

This research article examines the efficacy and feasibility of interleaved practice in mathematics education. Interleaved practice is an approach to learning where practice problems are arranged so that no two consecutive problems require the same strategy, forcing students to make choices based on the problem itself. The authors conducted a large-scale randomized controlled trial with seventh-grade math classes, finding that students who received a higher dose of interleaved practice significantly outperformed those who received mostly blocked practice on a delayed, unannounced test. The study also suggests that interleaved practice is feasible for teachers to implement, as they were able to incorporate it into their classrooms without any specific training.

What are the key implications for teachers in the classroom?

  • Interleaved practice, which involves mixing different types of math problems within an assignment, can substantially improve students’ performance on delayed tests. This approach has been shown to be more effective than blocked practice, where students work on a series of problems of the same type.
  • Interleaved practice is a feasible intervention that teachers can implement without extensive training. Teachers in a study reported that they could incorporate interleaved practice into their classrooms without significant changes to their teaching methods. They also expressed positive views about its effectiveness and ease of use.
  • While interleaved practice is generally beneficial, it may require more time for students to complete assignments compared to blocked practice. Teachers in the study observed that interleaved assignments were more time-consuming for their students. This time difference should be considered when planning lessons.
  • The benefits of interleaved practice may be more pronounced with longer test delays. The study found that interleaved practice led to better test scores when the test was given one month after the practice phase. This suggests that interleaving might be particularly beneficial for preparing students for cumulative exams or other high-stakes tests that cover material learned over a longer period.
  • It is important to provide students with corrective feedback when using interleaved practice. In the study, students were shown the solutions to the practice problems and asked to correct any errors. This feedback likely played a role in the effectiveness of the intervention.
  • Although interleaved practice is advantageous, it may be helpful to provide students with some initial blocked practice when introducing a new skill or concept. This can help students develop a basic understanding before they are asked to discriminate between different problem types.
  • Teachers can promote the use of interleaved practice by advocating for its inclusion in textbooks, workbooks, and instructional software. Currently, interleaved assignments are relatively scarce in these materials. By encouraging publishers to incorporate more interleaving, teachers can make this effective learning strategy more widely available to students.

Overall, the research suggests that interleaved mathematics practice is a valuable tool that teachers can use to improve student learning. By understanding the implications of this approach, teachers can create more effective learning experiences for their students.

Quote

In the present study, we assessed the efficacy and feasibility of interleaved practice in a naturalistic setting with a large, diverse sample. Each of 54 7th-grade mathematics classes periodically completed interleaved or blocked assignments over a period of 4 months, and then both groups completed an interleaved review assignment. One month later, students took an unannounced test, and the interleaved group outscored the blocked group, 61% versus 38%